1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose business purpose is the manufacture, supply, and sale of various hosting materials, such as paints and fireproof clothes.

B. The Defendant is a corporation established on April 16, 2012 and whose business purpose is the manufacturing business of industrial heat equipment and materials, etc. with the name “A”, “A”, “A”, “corporate registration number”, and “representative director D”, which were established on April 16, 2012.

C. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is a corporation established on June 3, 2002 and whose business purpose is the manufacturing business of heat equipment and materials with its head office F, Busan Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government F, Trade Name “E Co., Ltd., corporate registration number G, and representative director D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied various paint products equivalent to KRW 32,731,160 to the Defendant from February 25, 2015 to March 25, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount of KRW 32,731,160 to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion and E are separate corporations, and transaction with the plaintiff is not the defendant, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff.

3. According to each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3-3, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 19,767,10 on February 25, 2015, totaling KRW 12,964,050 on March 25, 2015, and KRW 32,731,160 on March 25, 2015.

In light of these facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff supplied various paint products equivalent to KRW 32,731,160 to the Defendant, not E, to the other party to the transaction, solely on the basis of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the fact-finding results with regard to the National Health Insurance Corporation. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.